Tuesday, July 27, 2010

I signed up on Obama's Organizing for America site a while back. I like that they send me emails about "our victory" in passing horrific legislation. I think we will have more success fighting for limited government if we understand the approach taken by power-hungry legislators to manipulate their supporters into agreement.

Today I received an email from Michelle Obama, asking me to sign Barrack's birthday card.

Here is some of the email:

Friend --

Every year, our family tries to come up with a fun way to wish Barack a happy birthday.

And this August 4th, when he turns 49, I have something new in mind.

This has been a big -- and hectic -- year for him. After signing the Affordable Care Act and Wall Street reform into law -- and completing his first year as president -- I think it's safe to say we will remember it for a long time.

Unfortunately, we'll be paying for it for a long time.

And I know full well how much he credits this movement, and the work of supporters like you, for the change that we've accomplished.

So I'm putting together a birthday card that I would like you to sign. Together with other Organizing for America supporters -- and me, Malia, Sasha, and Bo -- we'll wish him a happy birthday and let him know that we're ready to take on the year ahead alongside him.

This year also brought a lot of surprises -- some good and some bad.

I'll say.

Supporters like you have helped him make the best of it -- by contacting Congress to help push stalled legislation forward, by re-engaging supporters in the political process, by giving back with service projects across the country, and so much more.

So, it's referred to as "stalled legislation" instead of legislation the American people didn't want and fought to prevent.

And while we can't know what the coming year will bring, all of us, working together, will continue pushing forward for change.

Will you help make this a memorable birthday for Barack and wish him a happy 49th?

Thursday, July 22, 2010

In the hours after Sen. John McCain announced his choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be his running mate in the last presidential race, members of an online forum called Journolist struggled to make sense of the pick. Many of them were liberal reporters, and in some cases their comments reflected a journalist’s instinct to figure out the meaning of a story.

But in many other exchanges, the Journolisters clearly had another, more partisan goal in mind: to formulate the most effective talking points in order to defeat Palin and McCain and help elect Barack Obama president. The tone was more campaign headquarters than newsroom.

The conversation began with a debate over how best to attack Sarah Palin. “Honestly, this pick reeks of desperation,” wrote Michael Cohen of the New America Foundation in the minutes after the news became public. “How can anyone logically argue that Sarah Pallin [sic], a one-term governor of Alaska, is qualified to be President of the United States? Train wreck, thy name is Sarah Pallin.”

Not a wise argument, responded Jonathan Stein, a reporter for Mother Jones. If McCain were asked about Palin’s inexperience, he could simply point to then candidate Barack Obama’s similarly thin resume. “Q: Sen. McCain, given Gov. Palin’s paltry experience, how is she qualified to be commander in chief?,” Stein asked hypothetically. “A: Well, she has much experience as the Democratic nominee.”

“What a joke,” added Jeffrey Toobin of the New Yorker. “I always thought that some part of McCain doesn’t want to be president, and this choice proves my point. Welcome back, Admiral Stockdale.”

Daniel Levy of the Century Foundation noted that Obama’s “non-official campaign” would need to work hard to discredit Palin. “This seems to me like an occasion when the non-official campaign has a big role to play in defining Palin, shaping the terms of the conversation and saying things that the official [Obama] campaign shouldn’t say – very hard-hitting stuff, including some of the things that people have been noting here – scare people about having this woefully inexperienced, no foreign policy/national security/right-wing christia wing-nut a heartbeat away …… bang away at McCain’s age making this unusually significant …. I think people should be replicating some of the not-so-pleasant viral email campaigns that were used against [Obama].”

Ryan Donmoyer, a reporter for Bloomberg News who was covering the campaign, sent a quick thought that Palin’s choice not to have an abortion when she unexpectedly became pregnant at age 44 would likely boost her image because it was a heartwarming story.

“Her decision to keep the Down’s baby is going to be a hugely emotional story that appeals to a vast swath of America, I think,” Donmoyer wrote.

Politico reporter Ben Adler, now an editor at Newsweek, replied, “but doesn’t leaving sad baby without its mother while she campaigns weaken that family values argument? Or will everyone be too afraid to make that point?”

So, now we have reporters having to report on other reporters, judges "legislating from the bench," legislators running banks and car companies, and NASA focusing on Muslim relations. The insanity is driving me insane.

The problem is that al-Awlaki is a US born American citizen. And, if they can seek him out to assassinate him, what does that mean for other American citizens who may be suspected (possibly falsely) of terroristic ties?

Think about an American citizen, ordered to be killed by the President or government official, because he or she is suspected of having ties to terrorism. No trial, no due process, no chance to stand up for himself or herself. The implications are terrifying considering the Department of Homeland Security has already labeled tea party groups as "right-wing extremists" capable of terrorism.

I'm not standing up for al-Awlaki. He is probably guilty (notice the word "probably"). But, this is about liberty, and standing up for the rights guaranteed with American citizenship, no matter who that citizen is. This is about standing up for "innocent before proven guilty." It's about the Bill of Rights and the Constituiton, and the knowledge that when they are being threatened, we are all threatened.

Those who think, "Who cares, this doesn't affect me" remind me of a quote from Holocaust survivor Martin Niemöller:

“In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.”

Perhaps the assassination of some terror-suspected American citizens would make America a safer place. But, as Ben Franklin said, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Thursday, July 15, 2010

I saw a video yesterday on Fox of an ex-member of Iran's Revolutionary Guards who had turned on Iran and starting working with the CIA years ago. He was driven from the Iranian regime because of the brutalities he witnessed where he could see that "the radical minority are going to be ruling the country and driving the majority into the edge of the abyss."

More and more, it seems that we are not so unlike Iran in that "the radical minority" are ruling the country and "driving the majority into the edge of the abyss."

Less than 20% of Americans identify themselves as "liberal." And, I wonder how many of those would say they are radical socialist-leaning liberals like those who run the White House, the Senate, and the House.

Like in Iran, the sane majority watch in despair as the radical Obama Administration races us towards the annihilation of everything America stood for. We watch as the government destroys the future for our children, robs them of freedom, and endangers all our lives with weak foreign policy and an inability (and lack of desire) to protect our borders from illegals and terrorists.

The aforementioned spy hoped that by passing along information to the CIA the Americans would help the Iranian people "get rid of this evil government." Many of us hold a similar hope for liberation from the Obama regime so we can start rebuilding the damage they've already done, and save ourselves from becoming more like Iran. But, if no one was willing to save the Iranians, who is going to help us?

Friday, July 9, 2010

Mandy Connell will be asking Congressman John Yarmuth about my recent article that Yarmuth has a massive financial interest in a home health care company owned by his brother that has benefited from his advocacy for higher Medicare reimbursements.

Yarmuth said he believes her holdings (Anne Northup's) present conflicts "when she is casting votes that directly affect companies she has substantial interests in."Yarmuth said if he's elected he would divest himself of holdings that could mean a personal gain for him if he voted on an issue, including his 70,000 shares of Almost Family stock.

Tuesday, July 6, 2010

After all but destroying NASA, President Obama himself has assigned a new mission to NASA's Administrator, Charles Bolden. According to Bolden, Obama "wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science ... and math and engineering."

Huh? We are going to waste taxpayer dollars during a recession on making Muslims "feel good?" How do you measure success of a mission to make a group "feel good?" At what point do you say "Mission Accomplished?" How "good" exactly do they have to feel?

"This is a new height in fatuousness. NASA was established to get America into space and to keep is there. This idea to feel good about their past and to make achievements is the worst combination of group therapy, psychobabble, imperial condescension and adolescent diplomacy."

Bolden also said that one of the complaints about NASA is that they are too NASA focused and "too NASA-centric." Shouldn't those who work for a company be focused on the company?

Friday, July 2, 2010

First, the way to reduce the deficit is to spend more money. Now, Nancy Pelosi says unemployment checks "create jobs faster than almost any other initiative."

So, if you want to build homes, don't hire a construction company, give the money to the homeless guy on the corner. If you want to grow more food, don't plant more seeds, just eat.

Members of Congress should have regular psychiatric evaluations and be regularly drug tested.Hook Pelosi up to a lie detector test, have her give the same speech, and be sure to have a straight jacket handy in case she actually believes what she is saying.